DSC Personnel Are Armed Forces Personnel; Entitled To Condonation Of Shortfall In Qualifying Service For Pension: Supreme Court

The Court was hearing a batch of civil appeals concerning the entitlement of Defence Security Corps personnel to condonation of deficiency in qualifying service for the grant of a second service pension.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan observed: “In accordance with Rule 187(1)(r) of the Army Rules, 1954, read with Section 3(vi) of the Army Act, 1950, the DSC constitutes a 'Corps' of the Indian Army. Consequently, DSC personnel, together with other defence personnel, are collectively recognised as “Armed Forces personnel”.

“Accordingly, this Court holds that the Respondents are entitled to condonation of shortfall in qualifying service up to one (1) year, in accordance with Paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 and Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008 after determining the length of qualifying services in accordance with Paragraphs 9 and 18 of the Pension Regulations, of 1961 and 2008 respectively, as well as Note 5 appended to the letter dated 30th October 1987”, the Bench added.

The appellants were represented by Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, while Rakesh Kumar Singh, AOR, represented the respondents.

Background

The batch of appeals arose from disputes concerning Defence Security Corps personnel who had rendered a second spell of service after retirement from the regular Army and sought a pension for such second service.

The core controversy centred on whether such personnel, who fell short of the prescribed qualifying service of fifteen years for second service pension, were entitled to condonation of deficiency in service.

The Union of India contended that condonation of shortfall was not permissible for second service pension in DSC, particularly where personnel were already drawing pension from their first service, and relied upon policy clarifications and communications issued by the Ministry of Defence.

On the other hand, the respondents contended that DSC personnel form part of the Armed Forces and are governed by the same pensionary provisions as applicable to the regular Army, including provisions enabling condonation of shortfall in qualifying service.

Court’s Observation

The Court first addressed the status of Defence Security Corps personnel and held that the DSC constitutes a ‘Corps’ of the Indian Army and is collectively recognised as ‘Armed Forces personnel’. It noted that DSC personnel are drawn largely from former Army personnel and serve in defence establishments, thereby forming an integral part of the armed forces structure.

The Court then examined the scheme of the Pension Regulations, 1961 and 2008, and held that pensionary provisions applicable to regular Army personnel extend to DSC personnel unless there exists a clear inconsistency. It observed that “the pensionary provisions applicable to PBOR of the Regular Army shall equally govern pensionary entitlements of DSC personnel”

The Court clarified that an inconsistency arises only when provisions are irreconcilable, and in the absence of such an inconsistency, the general pension framework applies equally.

The Court held that the determination of qualifying service must first be undertaken in accordance with the Pension Regulations. It observed that “the Appellants must first determine the length of qualifying service… giving effect… to the relevant provisions… and… the letter dated 30th October 1987”. The Court noted that fractions of service are to be computed beneficially, including treating certain fractions as completed half years.

The Court held that condonation of deficiency in service is expressly contemplated under the Pension Regulations. It observed that “condonation of shortfall… up to twelve (12) months is specifically provided”.

Rejecting the Union’s contention, the Court held that there is no exclusion of DSC personnel from the benefit of condonation. The Court examined whether provisions governing DSC personnel exclude condonation and held that no such inconsistency exists. It observed that: “the mere existence of a separate provision… does not… establish inconsistency”. The Court clarified that provisions prescribing qualifying service do not bar condonation unless expressly stated.

The Court also rejected the argument that condonation cannot be granted for a second service pension on the ground that personnel are already receiving a first pension. It held that such an interpretation is not supported by the statutory scheme and cannot override express provisions enabling condonation.

The Court further noted the consistent view of the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Union of India v. LNK DSC Mani Ram (2010), Delhi High Court in Ex Sep. Madan Singh v. Union of India (2006), as well as the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in Smt. Shama Kaur vs. Union of India (2019) has been in favour of the Respondents, while stating that “these judgments have held the field for long and have been accepted and implemented by the Union of India”.

The Court concluded that “the Respondents are entitled to condonation of shortfall in qualifying service up to one (1) year…”, and directed that qualifying service be computed in accordance with applicable provisions and that condonation be granted where permissible under the regulations.

Conclusion

The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India and upheld the entitlement of Defence Security Corps personnel to condonation of shortfall in qualifying service up to one year for pension.

It directed that the length of qualifying service be determined in accordance with the Pension Regulations and relevant government instructions, and that benefits be extended accordingly.

Cause Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Balakrishnan Mullikote & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 286)

Appearances

Appellants: Additional Solicitors General Aishwarya Bhati, Vikramjit Banerjee & Archana Pathak Dave; Senior Advocates K Parameshwaran, Ruchi Kohali; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria; Advocates Abhishek Jain, Sweksha, Pramod Vishnoi, Raghav Sharma, Vaibhav Dwivedi, Kamal Digpaul, Ashok Panigrahi, Vaishnav Kirti Singh, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Ankita Chaudhary Rathi, Divya Jyoti Singh, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Harshita Choubey, T.S. Sabrish, Ankita Chodhary Rathi, Shreya Jain, Kamal Rattan Digpaul, Sunit Choudhary, Chitrangda Rastaravara, Advitya Awasthi, Aman Shukla, Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Abhinav Mishra, Udit Dedhiya, Megha Karanwala, Shivika Mehra, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Jagdish Chandra, Mohan Prasad Gupta, M.P. Gupta, Sridhar Potaraju, Astha Singh, Priyanka Tyagi, Digvijay Dam, Raman Yadav, Neelakshi Bhadauria, Aditya Kashyap, Rohit Pandey, Prasanjeet Mahapatra, Alka Agarwal, Ishaan Sharma, Ishan Kapoor, Sthavi Asthana, Sayooj Mohandas, Gaurang Bhushan, Vivek Gupta, Gaurang, Seema Bengani, Merusagar Samatray, Madhav Sinhal, Preeti Rani, Santosh Kumar.

Respondents: AORs Rakesh Kumar Singh, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Rabin Majumder, Sakshi Mehley, Charulata Chaudhary, Jaswant Singh Rawat, Satish Kumar, Jagrati Singh; Advocates Shudhanshu S. Pandey, Devendra Kumar, Raj Kumar, Ravi Kumar, Brajesh Kumar, Mousumi Roy, Joydeep Mukherjee, Dusmanta Kumar Pradhan, Shivam Majhi, Mohan Raj, Tansukh Rai, Shaily Jain, Banvendra Singh Gandhar, Simran Singh Parihar, Sohaib Alam, Ranjeet Singh, Abhaya Nath Das, Mohd Yasin, Monica Goel, Nitish Pande, Sarthak Udaipuria, Mahesh Sharma, Sonika Gill, Abhinav, Sitara Yadav, Sarita Verma, Satish Hooda, Gourav Dixit, Archana Ramesh, Rajpal, Surendar Kumar, Omprakash, R.S. Meena, Sonu, Prabhash Kumar Singh, Ajeet Yadav, M. Arifi, Praveen Kumar, Davender Rawat, Abhishek Upadhayay.

Click here to read/download Judgment